RE: [council] Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

This needs to be tidied up . The motions appear identical but mine actually
has a couple of minor changes to the wording.

 

Therefore, I propose the following:

 

1.       That my wording is a friendly amendment to David's motion
(hopefully acceptable to David & Amr) 

2.       I withdraw my motion and we remove the confusion of the two (near)
identical motions.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 25 August 2014 23:43
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Cake; Marika Konings; Glen de Saint Gery
Subject: Re: [council] Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC
Importance: High

 

Hi,

 

It seems we have two identical motions regarding appointment of GNSO liaison
to the GAC (one by David and one by Jonathan). I am happy to second either
one or both, if a seconding is still necessary. :)

 

Thanks.

 

Amr

 

On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:12 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





All,

 

Please see attached for a motion for consideration at the forthcoming
Council meeting on 4thSeptember 2014.

 

The motion relates to the Appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental
Advisory Committee

 

The motion will need to be seconded.

 

Thank-you,

 

 

Jonathan

<Motion - Appointment of GNSO Liaison to the GAC (25 August 2014).docx>